Sunday, 30 January 2011

Some people in Tunisia see their country as the anti-Iraq — a place where regime change proved possible without foreign intervention.

But it's not yet clear that its model of revolution from within will ultimately prove more influential among its authoritarian neighbors than Iraq's experiment with democracy has been so far.

Certainly, leaders throughout the Arab world have taken note of the Jasmine Revolution. Like Tunisia, other countries in North Africa and the Middle East are struggling with high unemployment, rising food prices and dismay about corruption — factors that contributed to unrest in Tunisia.

"This is a moment of near-euphoria in many parts of the Arab world in witnessing what amounted in their minds to a revolution, with the public bringing down an entrenched dictator," says Shibley Telhami, professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland and nonresident senior fellow in Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution.

There have been small demonstrations or self-immolations in countries such as Jordan, Yemen and Algeria.

The Egyptian opposition movement has called for a nationwide protest next week and wants President Hosni Mubarak to dissolve parliament and hold new elections. Like many regional leaders, Mubarak has held power for decades — 30 years in his case — and may come up for election this fall.

There has thus been a great deal of speculation that the revolutionary spirit will spread to other Arab states, but Marc Lynch, who directs the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, told NPR's Liane Hansen on Weekend Edition Sunday that he's skeptical.

"I think that the other Arab regimes have learned the lesson, and the lesson is not be nicer to your people. It's if you see any sign of protest, stop it right away," he says.

The Element of Surprise

Despite wars and outside geopolitical shocks, no dictatorial Arab regime had given up power prior to Tunisia. Instead, they have broken strikes, jailed opposition figures and displayed little temerity about using violence against their own citizenry.

"Just as the public watches and tries to figure out what it can learn from Tunisia, and can it be replicated," Telhami says, "you also have governments looking at this in a systematic and organized way, asking, 'How can I avoid this?' "

As yet, there is no obvious country where a second Jasmine Revolution appears imminent. Were one to occur, suggests William Zartman, former director of Africa studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, it would be much more violent than the Tunisian event.

"Tunisia benefited from the element of surprise," Zartman says. "Other movements have lost that element, and governments are preparing for them."

How Regimes May Respond

If no copycat revolution appears likely on the immediate horizon, authoritarian leaders throughout the Arab world are likely to factor potential spillover effects from Tunisia into their strategic plans for months and years to come.

They will likely respond in one of several ways — or in some combination — Zartman says. The first would be to crack down, blocking public demonstrations and jailing opposition figures, as already happened in Iran over the past 18 months.Thousands of Jordanian demonstrators attend a protest Friday against the country's economic policies, demanding "bread and freedom" and that the government resign.Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty Images

Thousands of Jordanian demonstrators attend a protest Friday against the country's economic policies, demanding "bread and freedom" and that the government resign.

The second would be to move in the opposite direction, providing greater liberalization in the public sphere along the Kuwaiti or Moroccan models, where parliaments are representative if not especially powerful.

The third would be an attempt to retain power, in essence, by buying off discontent by sharing national wealth, Zartman says. Like other oil-rich countries, Libya has attempted to do this, in its case through housing and economic development programs.

For more than two decades, Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was able to keep power and retain total political control by providing a relatively high standard of living, at least in urban areas.

Regardless of which approach — or combination of approaches — that Arab regimes ultimately take, they recognize that the Jasmine Revolution means that threats to their power may always be bubbling under the surface. Events in Tunisia have shown that it doesn't take years of building up civil opposition for a regime to crumble, says Leslie Campbell, director of Middle East and North Africa programs for the National Democratic Institute, which promotes free elections.

"The one thing they know they can't count on is not facing serious turmoil or an uprising because of lack of organized political opposition," says David Mack, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East Affairs under President George H.W. Bush.

Past Responses To Outside Challenges

Geopolitical shocks to countries in the Arab world previously led to periods of change, if not shifts in political control.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 led to the empowerment of Islamic movements within Arab countries, while the collapse of regimes within the old Soviet bloc a year later led to experiments in electioneering, Telhami says.

"Each of these episodes does have a consequence in terms of how governments behave and how societies organize themselves, even if it doesn't lead to a change of government," he says.

History might suggest that authoritarian regimes will adapt and survive again, but the threat presented by the Jasmine Revolution may be a bit different. Unlike the earlier shocks, this one took place in an Arab state. And it centers on issues that go to the root of problems in the Arab world, including the lack of enough jobs to support and utilize a population that skews young.

"The grievances that Tunisians expressed during their revolution are widely shared across the majority of all Arabs who are among the category of the have-not," says Nouredine Jebnoun, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. "Pervasive popular economic misery, alongside corrupted autocratic rule that draws its legitimacy only from the security apparatuses, make the region vulnerable to political turmoil."

Events in Tunisia also were much influenced by technological change. The rise of transnational media outlets such as Al-Jazeera means domestic populations are less easily swayed or influenced by government control of information. And social media were clearly important organizing tools for Tunisian protesters, making up for the lack of strong opposition forces such as unions and dissenting political parties.

"This is the first time we've had this kind of leaderless popular uprising in an Arab country," Zartman says.

A Dampening Effect?

The most powerful effect that Tunisia might have, suggests Leslie Campbell of NDI, is simply to show that "it can be done" — that authoritarian regimes are vulnerable in the face of popular uprisings.

That's why there's still a battle raging over how to interpret the Jasmine Revolution. Regimes in other countries are seeking to preserve some sense of invulnerability through spin, Telhami says.

"There's been quite a bit of narrative writing by people who are threatened by the idea that the public can simply overthrow a government — the authoritarian leaders in other parts of the Arab world," he says. "It's not a revolution, but an attempted coup. The public would not have succeeded if not for the military."

And the Jasmine Revolution's meaning is still up for grabs in part because its work is not yet done. The country still does not have a stable government in place. And the problems that bedeviled Ben Ali — high unemployment and food costs — have not been solved.

If anything, they could be exacerbated by the recent upheaval. The revolution's failure in practical terms, should this occur, could dampen hopes for regime change elsewhere.

Because of its social cohesion and high levels of education, says David Mack, a former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, "If there's any place that democracy should work, it would be Tunisia."

But if high food prices give way to food shortages, and if the tourists that the Tunisian economy depends on don't come back, Mack says, "then people are going to take away a very different lesson from Tunisia than the hopeful one that change is possible."

Despite efforts by South Africa’s well-developed arms industry and its government to position the country as a key supplier of arms to African countries, exports to sub-Saharan African destinations do not account for a significant share of South African arms exports. The driving force of South African arms exports to sub-Saharan destinations appears to be maximizing turnover for the industry and earnings from the sale of surplus equipment.Since the end of apartheid in 1994 South Africa has developed export policies, regulations and guidelines aimed at preventing arms exports that could fuel conflict or support human rights abuses. However, doubts persist about the functioning of this system. Like other countries, South Africa still allows questionable arms transfers to zones of conflict and to countries where arms are used in human rights violations. In general, South Africa’s export policy seems to be mainly a matter of abiding by United Nations arms embargoes with few other restrictions.A positive development in 2010 is that, after several years of not publishing arms export reports, South Africa has returned to a level of public transparency about its arms export policy, which provides some opportunities for parliamentary and public accountability. Hopefully, recent changes in the legislation will not mean a return to opacity in reporting.

Download the Background Paper here.

About the authorPieter D. Wezeman (Netherlands) is a Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme. He rejoined SIPRI in 2006, having previously worked at the institute from 1994 to 2003. From 2003 to 2006 he was a Senior Analyst for the Dutch Ministry of Defence in the field of proliferation of conventional and nuclear weapon technology.

I write with a great deal of trepidation, for the fear of beingaccused of practicing development economics without proper licence;however, while following the numerous contribution from a variety ofparticipants, most of them made very politely with due deference to‘senior academics’ in economics, I am somewhat disappointed at theremarks of the grandees of the profession.

To reconfirm my impressions, I forced myself to re-read the severalremarks of Prof Jagdish Bhagwati sent over the past four weeks. To sayAmy Kazmin from FT writes a ‘characteristically shallow’ article, not-so-gently putting down Jean Pierre Lehmann and Shukla, to point outthat Saner is advancing rubbish with his indices, to advise Fabian toread more economics and not mix it with cocktails in Chanakyapuri,directing marginally veiled invective at Amartya Sen, George Stiglitzand Martin Wolf, the list goes on.

I did not know that development economics is such a rough and tumblefield of enquiry, till my football loving friend pointed out that ifyou cannot play the ball, playing the man instead is a good strategy.Does it advance the cause effectively, I wonder.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of LondonPassengers have proclaimed the Mayor's massive investment in London Overground a success by voting it one of the best services in the south east.

This result adds strength to Mayor Johnson’s call this week for increased TfL involvement in other overground rail services in the capital.

Commuters in London said the frequency and reliability of TfL's London Overground network has vastly improved, in the latest independent survey by rail watchdog Passenger Focus.

Passengers also recognised cleaner, safer and more welcoming stations, as well as improved customer information - reflecting TfL's £1.4billion of investment in London Overground since taking over the former Silverlink network in 2007.

The Passenger Focus survey, carried out in autumn 2010, found that:

* Eighty-five per cent of passengers are satisfied with London Overground services overall, up from 82 per cent the previous year. The average figure for south east rail services in 2010 was 83 per cent * Seventy-four per cent were impressed with the frequency of London Overground trains, up by 14 per cent year on year * Passengers satisfied with train punctuality rose to 76 per cent, up from 68 per cent in 2009 * Eighty-four per cent said they were satisfied with customer information during their journey, up a whopping 24 per cent on 2009 (65 per cent) * London Overground's new trains scored 89 per cent for the proportion of those satisfied with cleanliness, up from 67 per cent the year before

"However we know that more needs to be done and our constant focus is on driving forward improvements to the transport network. Overground passengers can be assured we will not rest until they are able to enjoy the very best possible services."

Thursday, 27 January 2011

For all the column inches written about it in our newspapers and words spoken by economists, there’s really no mystery about what drives economic growth and creates jobs. It is business and enterprise – these are the engines of our economy. It is expanding businesses and the people with the courage to strike out on their own, the curiosity to innovate and the confidence to invest who are going to fire up economic growth in our country.

That’s why this government is relentlessly focussed on getting behind them. We’re asking businesses what they need to grow and prosper and we’re acting on the answers.

They want reassurance that the economy is sound – which is why we’ve taken decisive action to cut the deficit and restore sense to Britain’s public finances. They want more reasonable tax rates – which is why we’re now on course for the lowest corporation tax in the G7. They want the endless flow of new regulations to stop – which is why we’ve said that any new rule on business can only come in at the expense of an old one. And they want credit – which is why we are working hard to get Britain’s banks lending again.

But speak to businesses and they’ll say something else: that the balance of rights is tilted far too much in favour of employees over employers. They say it’s become far too difficult to hire and fire workers, and far too easy for those workers to make unscrupulous claims against them. This not only costs our businesses a lot of money – on average around £4,000 for defending a tribunal case - but takes up a huge amount of time and effort too. Vitally, it makes businesses think twice before taking people on.

I’m determined we shift some of that balance back. That’s why today we’re publishing two really important documents. The first has been a long time coming: an Employer’s Charter. This sets out clearly the rights they have in the workplace. For example, the right to withhold pay from those who go on strike or to sack someone for poor performance. It’s all there in black and white so there’s no longer any confusion.

The second is a consultation on how we can make the whole system work better. I don’t just want us to sort out the practical issues – like speeding up the tribunal process and encouraging people to resolve disputes between themselves instead of through the courts. I want us to get to the real crux of the issue too. At the moment, an employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal after working at a company for just one year. So we’re proposing to extend that to two years.

All this isn’t just good for employers; it’s good for workers too. No one wants to spend months on end worrying about a claim. And if businesses are more confident to take people on, it means more jobs for everyone too.

Have a look at what we propose yourself. You can see the Charter and consultation here. Better still, give us your feedback. If you run a business and think we can do things in a better way, let us know. If you don’t run a business but know someone who does, forward it on. And if you’re a worker or lawyer who’s had experience of a tribunal, let us know how we can improve the system.

Together, let’s create the conditions where business is really confident to invest, and jobs, growth and prosperity are created.

A businessman resident in Nampula but with a British passport was stopped at Nampula airport trying to take $190,000 in cash out of Mozambique. Under Mozambican law, the maximum amount of cash that can be taken out of the country without a declaration is $5000. This is the third such seizure in recent weeks.

The sale of the 15% of Hydroelectrica de Cahora Bassa (HCB) still held by the Portuguese state has been delayed by haggling over the price, according to the Portuguese newspaper “Diário Económico”. Initially Portugal owned 82% of the dam and Mozambique 18%, but in 2007 Portugal sold a 67% share for $700 million (obtained as a loan from a banking consortium) because the Portuguese government needed to reduce its deficit to meet EU rules. At the time, it was agreed that Portugal would sell the remaining 15% to Portuguese and Mozambican companies, later named as the Zambezi Electricity Company (CEZ) of Mozambique, and REN, the Portuguese state company that runs the Portuguese national grid. The sale should have happened in September 2010, but the two sides continue to disagree about price. The Portuguese also say the price is being depressed because Zimbabwe is still not paying for the electricity it consumes.

Community leaders in the border area of Milange district, Zambezia, are accused of selling farmland to Malawian nationals, stripping hundreds of Mozambicans of their fields. Under Mozambican law, land cannot be sold.

Pemba police stopped a ship from sailing with 161 20-foot containers full of the unprocessed logs which cannot legally be exported. Noticias reports that the timber belongs to five companies owned by Chinese citizens ñ Mofid (89 containers), Tienhe (30), Pacif (20), Sinlan (15) and Alphaben (7). Mofid has had illegal log exports stopped twice before, in 2004 and 2007. The illegal export appears to have been allowed by agriculture and customs officials and the port operator, state railway company CFM, and only stopped by local police, which inevitably raises questions about possible corruption.

+ Carvalho Muaria has become governor of Sofala, replacing Mauricio Vieira, who died in December. Muaria had been interim governor for six months due to Vieiraís failing health. + Francisco Pereira replaces Muaria as Deputy Minister of Public Works and Housing. He was previously chair of the board of the governmentís Roads Fund.+ Amelia Nakhare was named Deputy Minister of Development and Planning, to replace Maria Jose Lucas, who died on 2 January. Nakhare was previously Director of Statistical Coordination and Integration at the National Institute of Statistics (INE).

The Portuguese Banco Espirito Santo group, through its holding company BES Africa, bought 25.1% of Moza Banco. 24.5% is held by Geocapital, the holding company of the Macau billionaire Stanley Ho, with Portuguese investor Jorge Ferro Ribeiro, and Macau businessman Ambrose So Shu Fai who is member of the Chinese Peopleís Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body to the Chinese government. The majority, 50.4%, is held by Mocambique Capitais, a private company open to any Mozambican businessman or other professional, which now has about 300 shareholders. Moza Banco was started in 2008 by former governor of the Bank of Mozambique, Prakash Ratilal. It currently it has just two branches and 63 workers, but Ratilal says the BES investment will allow it to expand to 30 branches and about 300 workers by 2013.

PIRATES: Somali pirates have moved further south and on 27 December seized a Mozambican fishing boat, the Vega 5, in Mozambican waters. It has now been taken to Somali waters. The boat is owned by the Spanish-Mozambican fishing company Pescamar. The crew consists of 19 Mozambicans, three Indonesians, and two Spanish.

Mozambique has rejected a request by the state owned company Coal India for a further five coal exploration licences in Tete. Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources, Abdul Razak Noormahomed, said on 10 January that Coal India already has two licences in Moatize, Tete, which it has not yet begun to exploit. “They must develop what they have first. Then we will sit down and decide what to offer," Razak said.

The refusal caused a diplomatic incident, because the request was made personally by Indian Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal, who was accompanied by Coal India officials, at meeting with the Minister of Mineral Resources, Esperanca Bias. The meeting was supposed to discuss a Memorandum of Understanding under which India is to spend $40 million for building a Mozambican Institute of Planning and Organisation and a SADC (Southern African Development Community) regional institute for training and organisation, both aimed at the coal mining sector.

But it is part of a hard line by the Mozambicans to not hand out mineral licences to China, India and other countries on political grounds, but rather to demand concrete investment proposals.

The well known economist Jeffrey Sachs, speaking in Maputo 13 January, joined the growing chorus calling on the government to renegotiate the contracts of the mining and energy mega-projects to extract more revenue. It is necessary to change to rules, to extract more gains for Mozambique, he said, and cited the example of Israel which successfully renegotiated a contract for the export of natural gas to increase its revenue.

He also called for more support for agriculture, including subsidies, and for guaranteeing rural communities access to fertiliser and markets

Two respected establishment figures attacked the government on economic issues in articles in O Pais 17 January. Tomas Vieira Mario, chair of the Mozambican chapter of the regional press freedom body, MISA (Media Institute of Southern Africa), sharply criticised the government response to reports of increasing poverty by attacking the messenger. And Prakash Ratilal, president of Moza Banco and former governor of the Bank of Mozambique, says that “Mozambique, considered a country with huge land and water potential and which has received immense donor aid, has turned itself into a trading country, essentially importing consumer goods.”

Tomas Vieira Mario points to the way government officials and ministers are responding to recent studies showing that poverty is not decreasing by “rising up against technically solid institutions which they control, negating the scientific validity of the results of the surveys [and] discrediting, demotivating, and marginalising highly skilled national researchers, which will end only in dismantling solid institutions” that are praised for their research and have international standing.

In a TV interview, the Prime Minister blamed the National Statistics Institute for asking the wrong questions, because the results did not capture “the significant advances in our country,” Mario continues. The Prime Minister added, “it is not possible, for the ordinary Mozambican citizen, to say that Mozambique is poorer.” The governor of Inhambane said that the SETSAN (the food security technical group) report that 45,000 people in his province were hungry had been “invented to attract donor support”. For President Armando Guebuza, to say poverty is increasing is to show a lack of self-esteem.

Officials “repeat the argument that the 'evidence' of the naked eye refutes statistics.” But what their naked eye sees is Maputo, “one of the richest African cities”, where luxurious mansions and international standard shopping malls are being built. More fancy cars are in circulation. That is obvious to the naked eye, he notes. Yet it was also Maputo which had public demonstrations against poverty in February 2008 and September 2010, he notes.

Prakash Ratilal in his article says that “agriculture, agro-industry and light industry contribute little to national production,” and the government has no fiscal, labour or other policies to break the numerous blockages facing small businesspeople. Inflation increases because more money circulates but little is produced locally.

“The only way out is to give priority to the micro-economy, make use of natural resources and locally available capabilities, and promote national initiatives,” and these “small and medium projects must be pushed forward with the support of the state and the donors.” Ratilal concludes: “National interest must take priority over the interests of special groups and individuals.”

(The articles appeared only in the print edition, not on-line. Poor quality copies available on request.)

“There has been a real deterioration of welfare in terms of income, food consumption and nutritional status in Mozambique between 2007 and 2008,” concludes a study by the Washington-based Center for Global Development. All but one measure showed “a worsening of economic conditions” in urban areas.

The study was done to look at the impact of HIV/AIDS, but instead its main conclusion was of a general sharp fall in family income and food consumption, and a decline in nutritional status of children. Families of HIV/AIDS patients were actually less badly hit, because the increased availability of anti-retroviral treatment allowed HIV/AIDS positive people to do more work.

Data was collected in 2007 and 2008 in Maputo city and mainly in urban areas of Maputo province, Manica and Sofala from 896 households, two-thirds with at least one identified HIV positive adult, and the other third from a non HIV/AIDS household nearby.

Immediately following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address last night, a panel of Cato policy experts joined together to analyze the speech, its contents, and the perspectives it provides on how the President and Congress will try to lead the country going forward. In this video, each Cato expert provides analysis and insights through the lens of their years of research. You can also review the commentary from last night's live blog of the State of the Union here.

On 22 December President Barack Obama succeeded in moving the US Senate to ratify the new START Treaty negotiated with Russia and signed by Obama and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev in Prague on 8 April 2010 (see Bipartisan Security Group Welcomes Senate Ratification of START).

Senate ratification had been in doubt due to resistance by Republicans, some of whose votes were necessary to obtain the 2/3 majority required (see Leading Republican Senators Voice Opposition to START Treaty, Voice of America, 19 December). However, enough Republicans were persuaded to support by arguments that START would enhance US capacity to monitor and limit Russian nuclear capabilities, would not restrict US Ballistic Missile Defences, and would assist in nuclear non-proliferation efforts. (See America needs a New Start, by PNND Co-President Ed Markey).

The new START treaty is rather modest in terms of actual reductions in US and Russian nuclear stockpiles, but provides for a resumption of mutual monitoring of US-Russian nuclear forces, and opens the door to further nuclear US/Russian negotiations, and possibly to even start negotiations with other nuclear-weapon-states (see It’s just the START – next steps for the US in PNND Update 28, and START-ing a new Security by Rhianna Tyson Kreger, Huffington Post, 23 December 2010).

Some of the compromises made by the Obama administration to secure Republican support for START are raising concerns in the Russian parliament. On 27 December, the Voice of Russia reported that Russian lawmakers are concerned that US plans for Ballistic Missile Defence threaten Russian security and are in violation of the START treaty ( Russian Parliament grapples with START interpretations). Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the International Relations Committee in the lower house, noted that the preamble of the START treaty stipulates a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons. He also criticized US plans for non-nuclear warheads on ICBMs, saying that intercontinental missiles with non-nuclear warheads should be regarded as being included in the START agreement: “Clearly, when a missile is in the air, it’s impossible to say which warhead it carries. Presidents Medvedev and Obama passed these agreements on the basis of simple logic.”

The benefits of START ratification as both a confidence-building step and an opportunity to lay the groundwork for more substantive improvements in the security relationship between Russia and US appear to be recognized by the majority of Russian lawmakers, with the lower house voting by a large majority (350 in favour, 58 opposed) to consider the treaty. Mikhail Margelov, who heads the upper house's international affairs committee announced that “it is highly likely that the Federation Council will ratify the New START treaty on January 26 and send the agreement to the Russian president for signature” ( Russia’s upper house may ratify START Treaty on 26 January, RiaNovosti, 27 Dec)

However, these concerns in the parliament have led the Foreign Affairs and Defense committees to attach a list of ‘understandings’ to the draft law to ratify the treaty. These include procedures for dealing with new types of US or Russian strategic weapons, and rights of withdrawal from the treaty in a range of circumstances such as the deployment by the United States or its allies of missile defense systems that could reduce the effectiveness of Russian strategic nuclear forces. Analyst Pavel Podvig believes that the provisions of the ratification law will complicate the life of NEW Start, but “if the United States and Russia keep the dialogue open, they will find a way to make sure that these differences do not undermine the disarmament process.” (See Duma sets its own understandings of New Start).’

2. NATO post-Lisbon: Where to on nukes?

At the NATO Summit in Lisbon on 19-20 November, member States adopted a Strategic Doctrine entitled Active Engagement, Modern Defence reaffirming that nuclear deterrence ‘remains a core element of our overall strategy’ and that ‘as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance.” des browne

Lord Des Browne, Convener of the European Leadership Network

The Summit failed to adopt a number of proposals from the European Leadership Network - a group of senior political, military and diplomatic figures including some PNND members - to lower the role of nuclear weapons in NATO doctrine and ‘make disarmament a core element of its approach to providing security.’ However, the Summit did agree to proposals for a comprehensive review of deterrence and to ‘creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.' (See NATO Revises Nuclear Policy, Arms Control Today, December 2010).

On 16 December, European Leadership Network members Lord David Owen, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Des Browne released the article NATO nuclear policy exploring ideas for progress on NATO nuclear doctrine post-Lisbon, including: • ‘fresh efforts at engagement with Russia leading to a mutual and verifiable agreement on the reduction, and eventual elimination, of tactical nuclear weapons across Europe’ • A reduction in the declared role of nuclear weapons to one where ‘the fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear weapons today is to deter nuclear attack.’

The article concludes that ‘the relative stability of the Cold War nuclear stand-off will not be replicable in 21st century conditions’, and thus ‘NATO members must do all they can to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime’ and ‘ show responsible leadership on the disarmament side of the equation.’

Countdown to Zero, a powerful documentary produced by the same people who brought us An Inconvenient Truth, was launched in United States theatres in July. The movie traces the history of the atomic bomb from its origins to the present state of global affairs, with the world held in a delicate nuclear balance that could be shattered by an act of terrorism, failed diplomacy, or a simple accident. The film features an array of international statesmen, including Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pervez Musharraf and Tony Blair.

The movie has not yet opened in other countries. However, on 20 October PNND Japan hosted a pre-release screening of the Japanese version of Countdown to Zero in the new Parliament theatre. The screening was opened by Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara.

Watch the movie trailer

4. Parliamentary speakers reply to UN Secretary-General

On 26 February 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sent a letter to the Speakers of all parliaments noting the importance of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, highlighting the important role of parliaments and parliamentarians in advancing nuclear disarmament, informing them of his Five-Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament and commending PNND and the Inter Parliamentary Union for their efforts in engaging parliamentarians in these issues. This was a unique action, the first time a UNSG has gone directly to parliaments on a key global issue. peter miliken

Peter Miliken, Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons

Over 25 Speakers/Presidents of Parliaments have replied to the UNSG, including those from Austria, Bolivia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Syria, the United Kingdom and the United States.

New Zealand speaker Lockwood Smith, reported that the House of Representatives had adopted a resolution acknowledging US President Obama’s leadership, highlighting New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation, supporting the UNSG’s five-point plan and in particular preparations for a nuclear weapons convention.

Neol Kinsella (Speaker of the Canadian Senate) and Peter Milliken (Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons), in their joint letter, commended the UNSG for his initiative, emphasized the key role that parliamentarians and parliaments have in advancing nuclear disarmament and commending the role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for which nuclear disarmament is a ‘permanent concern’.

Joseph Biden, President of the US Senate, read the UNSG’s letter into the US Congressional Record and forwarded it to the Committee on Foreign Relations with an added note indicating that the letter was “A message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations petitioning support for Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.”

5. Wikileaks - Sarkozy opposes Obama’s anti-nuclear vision

On 22 December, Le Monde reported that US cables leaked by Wikileaks confirm that although French President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly claims leadership in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, behind the scenes his government vociferously opposes US President Obama’s vision for a nuclear weapons free world and any concrete steps to achieve this ( Les divergences entre Nicolas Sarkozy et Barack Obama à propos d'un "monde sans armes nucléaires).

Le Monde cites a Wiki-leaked cable of 22 January 2010 from Charles Rivkin, American ambassador to Paris, to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "The French express frequently their concern that any call in favor of a ‘world free of nuclear weapons’ might threaten the legitimacy of their arsenals that are a pillar of the French defense.”obama sarkozy President Obama reaches out to President Sarkozy

Le Monde argues the French have been actively lobbying US officials, including Rep. Ellen Tauscher the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, and have succeeded in moving the US to compromise from President Obama’s original rhetoric advocating a nuclear-weapons-free world to now advancing merely the objective to ‘create the conditions’ for such a world. This precludes the possibility of achieving nuclear disarmament until such conditions are met. The French succeeded in the adoption of such conditional language, for example, at the 2009 G8 Summit and in UN Security Council Resolution 1887.

According to Le Monde, losing its nuclear weapons would be perceived in France as a "social regression", and that there exists "a French anxiety at the idea of being deprived of a symbol of power if nuclear weapons were eliminated". The leaks indicate France’s opposition to even small steps such as progress on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. “…withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons located in Western Europe, would be experienced as the worst scenario” as Russia would then be ready to start negotiating cuts in the ‘aerial deterrent’, which would put pressure on France to join negotiations on nuclear reductions.

The leaks confirm a report by Ben Cramer in Le Monde on June 5 ( La France face à l'option zero) that French officials and pro-deterrence academics are rallying behind the legitimacy of France’s nuclear doctrine in opposition to increasing publicity given to the ‘zero option,’ and the possibility that progress could possibly be made on the removal of US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. In order to block such progress, France (and other pro-deterrence NATO governments) succeeded in convincing nuclear-hosting countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey) that any further decisions on removing such weapons should be made by NATO (which requires consensus) rather than by the individual countries in conjunction with the US, as happened when Greece and UK removed the US tactical weapons from their territories.

In May, France offered to host a meeting of the P5 (China, France, Russia, UK and US) in early 2011 to discuss implementation of the nuclear disarmament measures agreed at the Review Conference. The Wikileaks cables raise the question as to whether France will demonstrate good faith commitment at the P5 meeting, or whether the meeting will be used as a smokescreen while nuclear policies and practices continue as usual.

6. UK Update – new position, new members van riet

PNND UK Coordinator Rob van Riet

At its inaugural meeting in Portcullis House on 3 November, PNND UK announced the appointment of Rob van Riet, a public international law expert, to be the PNND UK Coordinator, a part-time position made possible through support from the Poldham Puckham Charitable Foundation. Rob also works as the Coordinator of the World Future Council Disarmament Programme.

PNND, with its international membership and global initiatives, aims to complement and collaborate with UK-based parliamentary groups working on nuclear disarmament issues including the All Party Group on Global Security and Non-proliferation co-chaired by Tony Lloyd MP and Lord David Hannay of Chiswick, and the Top Level Group of UK Parliamentarians for Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation convened by Lord Des Browne of Ladyton (former Secretary of State for Defense), and the Parliamentary Group of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament chaired by Jeremy Corbyn MP. PNND UK’s first action was to meet in the French Senate on 4 November with French legislators and aides to discuss UK-French parliamentary collaboration on common security and nuclear disarmament (See PNND launches France-UK collaboration).hannay Lord David Hannay

Recent outreach by Mr van Riet to selected UK parliamentarians, with the help of PNND Co-president Baroness Sue Miller of Chilthorne Domer and the Institute for Law, Accountability and Peace (INLAP), has resulted in a number of new members including Lord David Hannay (Cross-bench, President of the UK United Nations Association), Lord Geoffrey Howe of Aberavon (Conservative, former Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, and a leading member of the Top Level Group), Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative, Member of the Council of Europe), Caroline Lucas MP (Green, former MEP and Co-President of the European Parliament Inter-Group on Peace Initiatives), Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, former Secretary of State for International Development), Roger Godsiff MP (Labour, former Member of the Inter Parliamentary Union Executive) and Barry Sheerman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Chair Cross-Party Advisory Group to Chancellor of the Exchequer on European Economic Reform). See PNND UK Members for full list.

Meanwhile, PNND Global Council Member Jeremy Corbyn MP has been active in the House of Commons, raising questions to Secretary of Defense Liam Fox about the cost to taxpayers of the Trident (UK nuclear weapons) system, and gathering additional signatories for his Early Day Motion 498 calling on the UK government to support negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. New endorsers include Peter Bottomley (Conservative), Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat), Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru), Caroline Lucas (Green) and Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party).

In mid-October, a number of parliamentarians from NATO countries and other allies of the United States, prompted by a letter from the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), asked parliamentary questions on their government’s intended vote on a draft United Nations resolution calling for negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

The resolution was similar to one adopted by the UN in previous years to follow-up on the 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion which affirmed a universal obligation to negotiate for complete nuclear disarmament. This year, the resolution was revised to take into account key consensus agreements of the 2010 NPT Review Conference (See UN First Committee Monitor Momentum toward a nuclear weapons convention or framework of agreements).

Following parliamentary questions and receipt of the IALANA letter, whose signatories included former Vice-President of the ICJ Judge Weeramantry, a number of countries changed their vote either from opposition to abstention (e.g. Norway and Iceland) or from abstention to support (e.g. Kazakhstan and Tajikistan). Iceland parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir noted that the information from IALANA was very informative and influential in Iceland’s decision to abstain. The final vote on the UN resolution was 133 in favour, 28 opposing and 23 abstaining.

8. Scotland as a single-state nuclear weapon-free zone?

On December 9th the Scottish Parliament debated Motion S3M-7072 on Scotland’s Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, put forward by PNND Council Member Bill Kidd MSP, and supported by 18 other parliamentarians. The motion proposed that the Scottish Parliament should explore the possibilities of establishing Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones in Scotland “in homes, classrooms, places of work, communities, local authorities and in the environs of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, with the aim to register Scotland as a single-state nuclear weapons-free zone with the United Nations.” Kidd highlighted the experience of New Zealand where a mass movement declaring nuclear-weapon-free-zones in homes, schools, churches, workplaces and local authorities in the 1980s led to the entire country being established as nuclear-weapons-free by legislation.

The proposal faced opposition from some conservative members including Jackson Carlaw who declared that ‘Fantasy is no substitute for defending our country. To indulge in fantasies about nuclear weapons-free classrooms and the like is a parlour game and not a strategy for the defence or the security of Scotland or the United Kingdom.’ However, most speakers supported the motion, including Marlyn Glen (Labour) who quoted the Scottish Peace Covenant which declares: “We desire that Scotland should be known for its international contribution to peace and justice rather than for waging war”, and Joe Fitzpatrick (SNP) who noted that ‘Nuclear weapons have only one purpose: to kill large numbers of civilians. They have been no use to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it could be argued that by diverting money that could have been used to support the military on the front line they potentially cause the deaths of UK soldiers.'

The debate was concluded, without vote, by Bruce Crawford, Scotland’s Minister for Parliamentary Business, who noted that although Scotland currently does not have the scope to remove nuclear weapons from its soil, it can still make 'a united stand against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons.' He added that he was looking forward to the day 'when Scotland can join New Zealand as a proud country whose nuclear-free status is firmly set out in legislation.' For more information see: Debate on Scotland’s Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones

9. Nukes, climate change and the Arctic – new Cold War or a NWFZ?

Admiral James G Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander for Europe - one of NATO’s most senior commanders, recently warned that global warming and a race for resources could lead to conflict in the Arctic – possibly a new Cold War (See Climate change could lead to Arctic conflict, warns senior NATO commander, The Guardian, 11 October) polar bears

Three polar bears approach a US nuclear submarine that surfaced near the North Pole

Stavridis made his views known in a foreword to a Whitehall paper, entitled Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean: promoting co-operation and preventing conflict, written by Prof Paul Berkman, head of the Arctic Ocean geopolitics programme at the University of Cambridge. Berkman notes that "Strategic long-range ballistic missiles or other such military assets for national security purposes in the Arctic Ocean are no less dangerous today than they were during the cold war. In effect, the cold war never ended in the Arctic Ocean."

PNND Special Representative Romeo Dallaire joined other Canadian arms control experts (Adele Buckley, Erika Simpson and Mike Wallace) in September calling for innovative co-operation to ensure a peaceful future in the Arctic including establishment of an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (See A nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Arctic, The Embassy, 15 September).

PNND has collaborated with Pugwash Canada and Pugwash Denmark on a number of meetings and conferences to explore the possibilities of establishing such a zone.

See Canada Pugwash Arctic Portal and Arctic NWFZ conference - Denmark

10. PNND delegation to North Korea

A small delegation led by PNND New Zealand representative the Hon Matt Robson (former Minister for Disarmament) and academic Tim Beal (Associate Professor at Victoria University) travelled to Beijing and Pyongyang from 1-12 November 2010 in order to explore ideas for the peace and nuclear disarmament in North East Asia. The delegation met with parliamentarians, government officials, academics and peace & disarmament organizations. They explored a number of issues and initiatives including resumption of the Six Party talks on de-nuclearisation, proposal for a North East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, possibility of a peace treaty to formally end the war, increasing cultural and educational exchanges, building common interests through trade and economic cooperation, and other mechanisms for building regional peace and security.

11. Website – now in more languages

PNND aims to provide relevant documents and communications in key languages, in as much as our limited resources make possible. We are pleased to announce enhanced PNND websites in French, German, Japanese and Spanish which include many of our documents and updates.

12. New council membersRK Roderich Kiesewetter MdB

PNND welcomes the following members to its Global Council:

Roderich Kiesewetter MdB (CDU/CSU, Germany). Roderich Kiesewetter is Deputy-Chair of the Bundestag Sub-committee on Disarmament and Arms Control, leader of the German delegation to the Euro Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and member of the Parliamentarians’ Network on Conflict Prevention. Prior to entering parliament Mr Kiesewetter worked at the German defense ministry, EU Council and NATO headquarters where he was office manager of the chief of staff. SC

Saber Chowdhury with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Saber Chowdhury MP (Awami League, Bangladesh). Saber Chowdhury chairs the Bangladesh Parliament All Party Group on Climate Change and Environment, is Vice President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's Standing Committee on Peace and International Security and is an active member of the Commonwealth Parliamentarian Association. He has introduced legislation on prohibition of Torture and Custodial/ Extra-judicial killings in Bangladesh, rights of slum dwellers, a code of conduct/ethics for members of parliament, and repeal of Leprosy Act which had promoted segregation. He has introduced resolutions on nuclear disarmament and jointly authored an inquiry of the Bangladesh and UK Parliaments on Climate Change Equity.hh Hideo Hiraoka MP

Hideo Hiraoka MP (DPJ, Japan). Hideo Hiraoka is serving his fifth term as a member of the Japanese House of Representatives. He is the Vice-Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications and a senior advisor and the former Secretary General of the DPJ Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Disarmament and a member of the House Committee on Internal Affairs and Communications. He has led a number of nuclear disarmament initiatives including a joint Japanese/South Korean parliamentary declaration supporting a Northeast Asian nuclear-weapon-free-zone and a cross-party letter from 204 Japanese parliamentarians to US President Obama during the US Nuclear Posture Review supporting Obama’s vision for a nuclear-weapons-free world and initial steps including lowering the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines.